If you want a meticulously-linked summary of the current state of affairs, Doctor Saturday has you covered. Suffice it to say that the evidence in the media is at the point that it should overwhelm the understandable skepticism given the many false alarms to date.

The Big 12 is "dead" according to expansion savant Chip Brown, with Nebraska's defection the fatal blow and the original Pac-16 (Colorado, no Baylor) the next step. Colorado's move to the Pac-something is the next domino, with Matt Hayes and the local paper both declaring the move a fait accompli:

The University of Colorado will announce at an 11 a.m. Friday press conference that the school will leave the Big 12 and join the Pac-10.

Multiple sources confirmed the deal to the Camera early Thursday, and league officials are scheduled to be in Boulder on Friday for the announcement.

The Big 12 is set to explode soon after, though the remaining members are gathering in Austin to see if they can work something out. Also Texas A&M has been talking with the SEC, because crazy needs to happen everywhere.

Big Ten Endgame

The Big Ten seems to have been undone by the "solidarity pledge" taken by Texas (woo!), A&M (all right), and Tech (guh) despite the widely-held opinion amongst Texas fans that UT would prefer the Big Ten and the CIC over the Pac-10 and nothing. If we're entering a world of 16-team super conferences that are logistically stupid, the Pac-10 has just eaten the Texas power pellet and will start chasing the Big Ten all over the map, all because they are willing to swallow things like Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech.

If the Big 12 South minus Baylor does move to the Pac Something, where does that leave the Big Ten? Outmaneuvered, mostly. Letting Texas escape to another conference is a major blow. They'll be battering down Notre Dame's door by threatening to pick off enough Big East schools to destabilize ND's home for basketball and non-revenue sports. They could pick over the scattered remnants of the Big 12 to see if they want a Missouri, though the current environment suggests they won't.

It has become increasingly clear to me that Chip Brown of Orangebloods is a "savant" because he is being fed information from the Texas administration that the UT people think will put them in a better light. Brown continually tries to make Nebraska look like the bad guy, when it has been public knowledge that Texas has had the wandering eye for the past few decades.

I have said this several times, but I think this is going to be a 2-3 step process. I think they will still be looking at expansion, but with less media coverage now. Missouri will either be out of a conference come 2012, or will still be in an even more dysfunctional Big12. Everyone else will be in the same situation that they are now. I could definitely see this taking effect in 2012 and adding two more in 2013 and another two in 2015.

Honestly, though, If we expand to any more I am hoping for 2 out of ND, Pitt, and Mizzou.

Early on in the process we seemed to love Missouri- they fit geographically, they had natural rivalries, didn't have terrible sports teams, and I am not sure about them academically but I don't remember them being terrible. Now it seems like the Big Ten has cooled on them and I am not sure why...

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer Pitt, Syracuse, or Maryland, but I don't understand the change of heart.

Maybe it's like dating- now that the Big Ten knows it can have Missouri, it no longer finds it as interesting.

Missouri is way too eager and public about its desire to rent a U-Haul and get out of the BigXII. Reeking of desperation is unattractive.

Plus I mean it is one thing to want out of a conference with unequal revenue distribution, it is another thing to be trash talking the conference you're in while waiting in line to rent said U-Haul. Make your move, but be classy about it.

Yes, Larry Scott probably outflanked Delaney, but not by too much. Big Ten still gets a mucho-premium national name football program that isn't an academic wasteland, fits somewhat geographically (Hello Iowa, Minnesota!) and actually adds a huge rival in a non-revenue sport (Iowa / Nebraska wrestling will be meets of epic proportions). Plus a potential kick-ass trophy is in play (Gold Bucket of Corn people???)

And look at our fallback plans to go to 14 or 16... Missouri, which for all the cold shoulder treatment would still bring the not-too-shabby media markets of St Louis and Kansas City into the BTN footprint; Rutgers, which NY markets aside does get us an Atlantic presence, a rival for Penn St, and APR results considered, a place that isn't going to embarass the Big Ten's academic rep; and Pitt, still the best fit geographically and culturally and the most natural rival for Penn St.

Even with that, there's still a distinct possibility ND back doors in, which I don't give a shit how, if they do come in, that's a win for the Big Ten as a conference; and if we pull a coup of getting Maryland, that's a HUGE get as it now forces the BTN into the Baltimore/DC/NoVa media markets.

Like my nudie bar analogy from a couple days ago in a Board thread, we just wanted boobies (expansion), we saw the Champaign Room (Texas), couldn't get sex in the Champaign room (Bye Texas), but still saw boobies (expansion) and are yet disappointed.

And for the Pac 10 fans out there, it wasn't that long ago that the Pac -8 went to the Pac-10 and the academic heavyweights had to really swallow hard to take Arizona & Arizona St... think what Stanford, Cal must be thinking now that they have to admit Texas Tech and OK St into their once premier academic conference...

Eh, I don't there was ever a true chance in hell Texas would come north. Just a lot of blather and posturing for other purposes. And, given how Texas has ruled the Big 12, I'm far from convinced that they would be a good fit anyhow from a conference administrative point of view.

And if you're going to reference "...16-team super conferences that are logistically stupid," Texas in the Big Ten of the upper midwest fits that definition to a T. Athletic conference were originally conceived of as voluntary organizations of geographically close schools. The Brave New World of mega-conferences will blow that to hell, and I think any new geographically nonsensical entities that spring up will be like unstable particles with short half-lives.

And it could have been avoided. Delaney should have made no announcement at all about the B10 considering expansion. He should have said nothing, and lied if asked. When he did discuss the possibility, he set in motion a speculative fever, with all the other schools and conferences speculating on what he would do, and lining up their options so that they would not be disadvantaged by a surprise announcement. When a company is thinking about merging with another, you never talk about it, for precisely this reason. Terrible move by Delaney, and the only possible redemption for him is if he gets both NB and ND.

Delaney may have been trying to put a scare into Notre Dame by going public with plans. I don't think he started shooting his mouth off just because he had a little secret that he wanted to share, but who knows.

I just don't agree that Delany was outmaneuvered. For any school including Texas joining the B10 is the Bigest prize and not the other way around. If Teexas could make their decision on their own, they would be headed north. But when they come with TT, AM, and Baylor attached, (or even 2 of the 3) then it just becomes not worth it. If you get texas alone, you get all of texas. you litterally gain nothing by adding any of the other 3. In the end the B10 passed on Texas under the terms that were presented. I am OK with that. As for making this public, I think that was a tactical maneuver done purposely to put extra pressure on ND. As soon as all this started, 1 million scenarios were instanly talked about. In every single one, ND either joined the B10 or lost out big time. None of them had ND staying independent and somehow still having any influence in what will be a 4 superconf scenario... None of them had ND joining some other superconf (maybe the ACC, but that would pale incomparison to the B10). I think Delaney was just letting popular opinion do his pr sales job for him. He let that stew for a while then when ND got a little worried, he stepped in to close the deal. Not saying this will work in the end, but if I had to bet, ND is in the conference in the next couple years.

First, if "joining the B10 is the biggest prize" Texas would be joining. It's not as clear cut as you believe. Second, we don't know if the B10 passed, in fact the evidence suggests we got passed on. Lastly, a fundamental principle of getting what you want in a money transaction is NOT publicizing it in any way, because the price goes up and the other party may walk.

I mean, is it really the end of the world if we stop at 12? I'd personally prefer it, as anticlimactic as it would be. Losing Texas to the Pac 10 of all things is unfortunate, but even Texas wasn't worth it if we're talking about adding those hangers-on. I'm excited about a conference championship, and if we happen to not add Rutgers, Syracuse, Maryland and ND, I think I'll survive. Nebraska is enough, IME.

The USN&WR rankings for example put a lot of emphasis on perception of the university by "expert" panels. I'm sure Nebraska's entrance into both the Big Ten and CIC will increase their perception as a academic institution and hence, their ranking will improve (not to mention the research funding and endowment numbers that also play into the rankings). Remember the Penn St example... pre-Big Ten they were about even with Texas in terms of research dollars... today they're about $200M ahead of Texas and, SHOCK!, they're considered a top university. A university joining the Big ten has about as much to gain if not more than the conference itself.

I always wondered whether the eggheads who make the rankings even knew which athletic conference each one belonged to. I feel marginally better about this, but I'm still not sold on basketball, baseball (they will own the Big Ten for years), or most non-revenue sports.

One big distinction when measuring academic excellence is where the schools get their students from and the percentage of OOS attendees. Northwestern is private and draws from all over. Michigan also draws a high percentage of OOS students; and is very competitive. I would bet a school like Nebraska has a high percentage of in-state students from a state with a relatively sparse population. The results manifest themselves in USNWR's rankings.

Personally, many of my family members have attended Michigan due to its academic excellence. Most of us are football fanatics, but the education was the reason, not the football, why Michigan was chosen. For this reason, I would love to see Pitt and ND come on board and why I feel Texas, with its excellent academics probably ending up in the PAC-16? is a huge loss.

Did we really think Texas was likely? They're always a package deal, and we're better off with Nebraska, ND, Rutgers, Syracuse and Mizzou than we are with Texas, A&M, Tech, Baylor and [insert school]. As long as Texas' politicians force them to be a package deal, we're better off without them.

Additionally - and this is the bigger point - with Texas' penchant for uneven revenue sharing, unequal control, throwing their weight around, etc., do we want them as a partner long-term? I could see a Big Ten with Texas being held up for increased $$ rights, and then being blown up again in the future, something we don't need. Good luck to the Pac-10 with them - I think the Big Ten's commitment to finding team players who fit and still grow the conference is going to serve us well long-term, though. Nebraska is a homerun.

And I realize its all about the money, I don't really think Texas is a great fit. I mean, yes academically they are fine, and their Fball is fine, but the non-revenue sports would get thrown for a loop. Also, I feel like Texas would be trying to make the conference all about them all the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this Texas or bust attitude is really deserved.

I think it was in the Frank the Tank post linked a ways back. Austin isn't really close to much of anything, so most of Texas' non-revenue teams fly anyway. The difference between flying to Lincoln and flying to Ann Arbor is probably much less than the difference between driving from AA to East Lansing and flying from AA to Austin.

Big Ten non-revenue? Affected somewhat, sure (although the same situation is already happening here, most likely with Minnesota and Penn State), but they'll make changes to make it happen ... particularly with the extra money the conference would be getting from the BTN.

I have a big problem with conferences that make no geographic sense, so I was never on board with Texas. Notre Dame, Nebraska, Missouri and Pitt have always made the most sense for us. Keep it local.

Can someone explain the Rutgers obsession to me? The Big Ten network is on every NYC-area cable network that I know of. And there are probably more Big Ten alumni in the NYC area that Rutgers alumni. What does adding Rutgers get us, exactly?

Rutgers gets us jack shit. New Yorkers generally don't care about college sports in proportion to pro sports, much less Rutgers of all schools. The entity that stands to benefit the most from Rutgers joining the Big Ten...or even benefit at all...is Rutgers.

I am a New Yorker. There are people here who care about college sports, but they are ALL Big Ten, SEC and (to a lesser extent) ACC alumni. Joining would be a BOON to Rutgers - they would sell out every conference game easily with visiting fans alone. Which would be kind of a joke in and of itself.

It's about what level of the cable networks BTN is on. Currently, you have to specifically order an additional sports tier to get it. If BTN gets on basic, or even "basic digital," that's a lot more subscribers.

I don't know what it entails to do that, but having at least one NYC centric school is part of the equation.

If this is true, there's a significant difference between what the Big Ten collects per subscriber within the Big Ten states and from subscribers outside those states. (Obviously for this to be worthwhile, "states" would magically include NYC in Rutgers' case.)

Currently, the channel receives between 50 to 70 cents per subscriber in areas that are in the conference's geographic footprint, which ranges over eight states. For subscribers outside that area, the rate drops to around 10 cents per subscriber. The upshot: there's a strong financial incentive for the conference to expand into the New York City market, via Rutgers, as well as the St. Louis area, via Missouri.

If you're a sports fan - which I'm - (and why would you be an MGoBlogger if you weren't?) you have to love the idea of B10 expansion, given the right set of teams. Who wouldn't want to see a Michigan-Nebraska game on Saturdays? Or Penn State-ND, for that matter?

One of the things that has troubled me about the BTN, is that it often televises games like MSU-Minnesota (yawn) or Indiana-Purdue (double yawn) or Northwestern-Indiana (comatose). Depending upon how the conference gets aligned into divisions, we could see some unbelievable matchups every single week.

It might be a little confusing, though, if Maryland joins. How do they set up the little scoreboard on the top of the TV screen? UM-UM? UM-MICH? MICH-MARY?

I would love to see Maryland get to play Michigan every couple years, even if it meant having to choose my fandom (Michigan wins, obviously) on a regular basis. Maryland actually has a pretty raucous football atmosphere, despite the fact that their team is mediocre at best most years. I guess it's because the same students who give Maryland their imfamous basketball fan reputation wind up at football games too.

Having lived in Maryland most of my post-college life, U of Maryland has never shown much support for its football program based on attendance. Considering the size of the school and the population center in which UMD is located, one has to wonder just what UMD brings to the table. It is a basketball school, and that program is incredibly well supported. But football? I don't see it. Academically the school would be an OK fit.

because those games aren't leaving the BTN. In fact, the more marquee teams the Big Ten adds, the more likely it is that the BTN games will involve the teams you don't want to see. (Unfortunately for you, that was kind of the purpose of the BTN, to televise the "other" games.)

There will be solid matchups every week, and ABC and ESPN will be more than happy to televise as many as they can. For those of us willing to watch other teams, the BTN will simply be able to carry more games (woo alternate channels!).

So, if it is indeed Nebraska and only Nebraska, the most obvious set-up for divisions is East-West, looking like so:

EAST

Penn State

Ohio State

Michigan

Michigan State

Indiana

Purdue

WEST

Northwestern

Illinois

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Nebraska

Terribly lop-sided in favor of the East. North-South requires a fairly arbitrary line to be drawn. This is clearly a football-and-money decision. It's not good for college sports and it's not good for the Big Ten. But what does that matter?